Cited by 56Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

The optimal home blood pressure monitoring schedule based on the Didima outcome study

Stergiou, G S, Nasothimiou, E G, Kalogeropoulos, P G, Pantazis, N, Baibas, N M·2010·Journal of Human Hypertension

Abstract

This study investigated the optimal schedule for home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring that has the greatest prognostic ability and provides the most reliable assessment of HBP. The Didima study assessed the value of HBP (duplicate morning and evening measurements, 3 days) in predicting cardiovascular events in the general population (662 adults, 8.2+/-0.2 years follow-up). Criteria for the optimal monitoring schedule were stabilization of mean HBP, its variability (standard deviation (s.d.)) and hazard ratios (HRs) of cardiovascular events per 1 mm Hg HBP increase. By averaging more readings (1-12), there was a progressive decline in average HBP and its s.d. and increase in HR, with most of these benefits achieved on the second day (8 readings) and little additional benefit obtained on the third day (12 readings). The first day gave higher and more unstable HBP values (higher s.d.) with less prognostic ability (lower HR). The first HBP readings per occasion gave higher values but with similar prognostic ability as the second readings taken 1 min later. There was little difference in average HBP between morning and evening readings with no prognostic superiority of morning readings. In conclusion, by averaging more readings the average HBP and its variability are reduced and the prognostic ability improved. Any aspect of HBP monitoring (first or second readings, morning or evening) has similar prognostic ability. The first day gives higher and unstable values with lower prognostic ability and should be better discarded. These data validate the HBP monitoring schedule proposed by the European Society of Hypertension.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/jhh.2009.54

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stergiou, G. S., Nasothimiou, E. G., Kalogeropoulos, P. G., Pantazis, N., & Baibas, N. M.
Affiliations
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
Corresponding author
Stergiou, G S
Venue
Journal of Human Hypertension
Published
2009-07-09
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
158-164
ISSN
  • 0950-9240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5527
OpenAlex
W2020200519
Cited by
56
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
home blood pressure monitoring, cardiovascular events, blood pressure variability, prognostic value, European Society of Hypertension guidelines
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Circadian Rhythm, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Proportional Hazards Models, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review